Bug 226023

review:

GOOD:
- name ok
- license ok
- locales properly handled
- libs correctly installed
- no *.la


NEEDSWORK
- python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own COPYING* files. You can choose between the two possibilities.
  For more info see:
  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2010-July/000631.html

- $ rpmlint ./libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc13.src.rpm ./x86_64/libgsf-*
libgsf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> Eg, eh, e
libgsf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> Eg, eh, e
libgsf-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gsf-vba-dump ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gsf ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-gnome.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libgsf-gnome-1.so.114.0.18 ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-gnome.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gsf-office-thumbnailer ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-gnome.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gsf-office-thumbnailer.schemas
libgsf-gnome-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libgsf-python.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/gnomemodule.so gnomemodule.so()(64bit)
libgsf-python.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/_gsfmodule.so _gsfmodule.so()(64bit)
libgsf-python.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/gnomemodule.so ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-python.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gsf/_gsfmodule.so ['/usr/lib64']
libgsf-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 7 warnings.

See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Removing_Rpath

- I needed to use 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' and not just 'rm -r' in %clean, or the build fails for me.

- Please use this macro from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

%if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5)
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")}
%endif

And not your own defined python_py_sitearch and python_lib_sitearch.

- Please use INSTALL="install -p" when installing to preserve timestamps.

a) python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own COPYING*
files...

"If a subpackage is dependent ... implicitly ... upon a base package ... it is
not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %doc."

rpm -qlp RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep COP
/usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING.LIB

rpm -qp --provides RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf
libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit)
libgsf = 1.14.18-2.fc14
libgsf(x86-64) = 1.14.18-2.fc14

rpm -qp --requires RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-python-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf
libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit)
libgsf-gnome-1.so.114()(64bit)

So its not necessary for libgsf-gnome to include a license text as it requires implicitly libgsf whose package has a %doc. So I reckon that one is ok.

b) E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath

now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14

c) - I needed to use 'rm -rf ...

now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14

d) - Please use this macro from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14

(In reply to comment #2)
> a) python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own COPYING*
> files...
> 
> "If a subpackage is dependent ... implicitly ... upon a base package ... it is
> not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %doc."
> 
> rpm -qlp RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep COP
> /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING
> /usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING.LIB
> 
> rpm -qp --provides RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf
> libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit)
> libgsf = 1.14.18-2.fc14
> libgsf(x86-64) = 1.14.18-2.fc14
> 
> rpm -qp --requires RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-python-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep
> libgsf
> libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit)
> libgsf-gnome-1.so.114()(64bit)
> 
> So its not necessary for libgsf-gnome to include a license text as it requires
> implicitly libgsf whose package has a %doc. So I reckon that one is ok.

Yes, it's ok... I just looked to the spec file :(

> b) E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
> 
> now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14
> 
> c) - I needed to use 'rm -rf ...
> 
> now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14
ok 
> d) - Please use this macro from:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
> 
> now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14    
ok

Thanks.

Just a cosmetic issue:
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitelib} resolves to
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT//usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/
               ^^

So one '/' should be deleted. But that's only cosmetic...

______________________________________________________________________________

APPROVED